Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Nangle (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Nangle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:AUTOBIO (compare creator's username to the name of the subject's studio in the "later career" section) of an artist. The references are mostly contextlessly listed at the bottom, rather than properly footnoting the article's content, and virtually all of them are non-notability-assisting crap: three are unreliable sources, three are dead links, one is a mere blurb about him in a listicle, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about something else, three are either self-published or directly affiliated primary sources, and one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being objectively talked about or analyzed by other people -- and literally the only one that actually counts as a reliable source at all just tangentially verifies the existence of another artist's work while completely failing to verify that Nangle had anything to do with it. None of the sources here constitute evidence that he passes WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AUTOBIO continues beyond the creator's first username into his second incarnation as (User:Etidorhpaunderground), following a uw-softerblock on 28 Dec 2015. Comments from the first AfD are still relevant. On sources: Note that just "being an artist" doesn't usually mean he is automatically a "notable artist" worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. His closest claim to fame seems to be that he shared the workshop with a notable artist (who in turn was only deemed notable following the controversy surrounding the removal of his 9/11 memorial artwork by the owners). Loopy30 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced WP:AUTOBIO, fails encyclopedic notability. If these are the best sources the subject/creator could find for himself, I'm just going to assume there aren't enough independent reliable sources out there to justify this page. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I now think this should also be semi-protected per below exchange with article subject. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin and we don't do autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I personally didnt write any of this, my assistants did it, as this is the studio account they started to do just that,and they thought it was a good project. Aside from the fact that all of the above reasons fail to be compelling enough to "prove im not a known artist" which is of course ridiculous, (I didnt "share a space" with Tobin, I physically made his artwork for the past 25 years,as well as many other artists. how is it possible to NOT talk about myself in a QUESTION and ANSWER interview?! etc.etc.) I do not care one way or another if there is Wikipedia article about my work,in fact i am uncomfortablehaving any attention,that's why i dont have a website or social media(another reason my helpers used to convince me to do this). In light of the fact that I have been invited by the Delaware Museum of Contemporary Art to show in Feb 2018 its probably best to not have this embarrassingly written,controversial and awful representation online. i also would question johnpacklambert's ability as an editor if the most they could come up with was that this 'isnt LInkdin' instead of identifying actual content problems ,as all the other editors here have, I appreciate all the work that real editors do here and find it lazy when someone isnt actually contributing ,but rather complaining. We all know that I actually would qualify for a BLP as an artist/composer, since my career is very well documented online and all one has to do is google my name to find out that information. My assistants wanted me to have recognition in my fields and they also felt that i lacked any coherent biographical information online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidorhpaunderground (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you felt it appropriate to insult other editors and claim you satisfy encyclopedic notability, if even you agree this article should be deleted. Responding to AfDs is real work. I spend time evaluating each page to determine if I believe it meets Wikipedia’s criteria before commenting here. I agree with the comment that “this isn’t LinkedIn”, it’s just a different way of saying that this has a real content problem that fails WP:AUTOBIO and WP:GNG. LinkedIn is where people go to promote themselves, Wikipedia isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be). I fully expect this article to be deleted, but now also think it should be semi-protected so you and your assistants don’t come back and try to recreate it given your insistence you do “qualify for a BLP” and only want it deleted until February. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you really do not want me to be included in an encyclopedic context for some reason? that doesn't seem very professionally detached,and it also supposes that i may never,which would mean that you may think youre clairvoyant. I did not know what linkdin is firsthand, so i cant speak to its uses,I feel that using what something is NOT(linkedin) to define what it should be is confusing and lazy. also a straw man argument. I dont believe that my assistants felt the need to try to garner attention for our studio or my artworks through Wikipedia. Last i checked criticism is supposed to make things better,not to be taken as an insult. i do not have an account at Linkedin, nor do i seek to promote myself. i am an artist that is engaged in my work, that is it. if you feel the need to 'block' me or my studios assistants based on the fact that i took umbrage with another editor then it shows that you're not as detached as you'd portray yourself to be. a good editor is neutral and has no affinity nor disdain for its subject. So are you now going to take an action based on you disagreeing with my assessment of another editor? that's a slippery slope. I stated above that I WANT IT DELETED . i never said UNTIL February. Its not a very prfessional,or well written piece and it fails the content organization that is required for WIKI standards. please refrain from personally attacking me and assuming that you know my intentions it's really counterproductive. Instead you can just ask me and i can answer you ,or you can re-read what i wrote above. I had NO idea that this write up my staff did was formatted so poorly, i dont use social media or the computer except in the context of my work for research etc. i had assumed that Michele had done a better job of following WIKI gudielines and also had written a less disjointed and rambling write up of my work. She directed my attention to some vandalism that she removed and that is when i saw your comments.In the future please try to remember that not everyone has bad intentions,some of us are just trying to do the best we can and make great work. *I see now after writing the above that you have indeed taken the vindictive step of requesting that our studio not be able to write about anything that may happen in the future,very unprofessional and very disappointing step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etidorhpaunderground (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, qualifying for a Wikipedia article is entirely a matter of being the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to satisfy WP:GNG. There's nothing that any artist's article can claim that confers automatic inclusion rights if the article isn't properly sourced — it's not what you've done that determines whether you get an article or not, but how much media coverage you did or didn't get for doing what you've done. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.